I heard that on the radio as well (are you a wannabe old person like me who listens to Radio 4 on my way to/from work ) shocking.
Personally I think the appeals system should be more scientific. If I propose an alternative model for how a system behaves that radically disagreed with everyone elses I'd have to do experiments to demonstrate that this is the case (and how the currently understood model doesn't explain my results). As a matter of fact, I do radically disagree with my PI on something like this :p although I'm not the only one. A defendant should be expected to put forwarded an explanation for how the evidence against them can be explained by an alternative explanation, and some evidence that supports this. Rodney Reed for example is trying to do this, but aside the dispute over the degree of rigor mortis he hasn't put forward anything convincing of his version of events. Atleast, nothing that would outweigh the evidence used to convict him. No one should spend 30 years on death row, how long does it take to resolve a case that's being investigated thoroughly?
Bookmarks